Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce

An open access Internet journal (http://www.icommercecentral.com)

Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, April 2016, vol. 21, no. 1

Mobile Use and Online Preferences of the Millenials: A

Study in Yalova
AKKUCUK U
Department of Management, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey, Tel:
+902123596524
Email: ulas.akucuk@boun.edu.tr
TURAN C
Department of Business Administration, University of Yalova, Yalova,
Turkey

Abstract
The aim of this research is to understand the use of social media in the millennial
generation. Millennial generation covers those people born in the early 2000’s. The
research study answers critical questions such as: Why do the millennials use social
media? Which website or social channels do they use most frequently when they surf
the Internet? Using the social media has been explained thoroughly from a conceptual
standpoint in different academic sources. We want to offer the readers some
quantitative results beyond the qualitative research studies found in the literature. The
study involved a questionnaire administered to 120 children between the ages of 12 and
17. The children were chosen by convenience sampling among the students from a
combined Primary and Secondary Public School located in the Yalova district of Turkey.

Keywords: Social media; Millennials; Online behaviour; Yalova; Internet; Social

JIBC April 2016, Vol. 21, No.1 -2-

networks

© Akkucuk U, 2016

INTRODUCTION
Usage of social media is increasing day by day. Approximately every individual in the high
income and upper middle income countries has a social media account. But their primary aims
in using the different types of social media differ from each other substantially. People use the
social media for connecting with friends, for chatting, for following the brands they like,
gathering information, following celebrities and for many other reasons.

Social media is a term used to describe a variety of Web-based platforms, applications and
technologies that enable people to socially interact with one another online. Some examples of
social media sites and applications include Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Linked-in, blogs and
other sites that have content based on user participation and user generated content
(abbreviated as UGC).

In October 2004, researchers Neil Howe and William Strauss called Millennials "the next great
generation". They define the group as "as those born in 1982 and approximately the 20 years
thereafter." In 2012, they affixed the end point as 2004. The participants of this study by this
definition are “millennials”. It is not determined yet what the next generation will be named.
Some researchers have suggested the “C generation” meaning the “click generation” will be our
next generation.

Regardless of the terminology we use to call the youngsters of today who will be in the work
force and act as consumers in a couple of years’ time, we should know what motivates them to
use social media. If we know their behaviors in social media, marketing people can develop
projects according to them. In the long run this will increase the profitability of any sector,
especially the banking sector which uses online applications extensively.

LITERATURE REVIEW

A number of papers have been published about the different generations’ use of the Internet or
the social media. We will review the most relevant ones in this section. Some of the papers
reviewed analyze the behavior of teens as separate from adults in terms of how they use their
mobile devices. Some papers analyzed the different labels of generations (such as Y, X) in
terms of how they use social media.

According to Yarrow and O’Donnell [1], teens and twenty-something’s are twice as likely as their
elders to use mobile devices for tasks other than talking. And they are far more likely to opt in
for text promotions, mobile coupons and mobile search services.

In Bolton et al.’s paper [2] it is stated that Generation Y actively contributes, shares, searches
for and consumes content – plus works and plays – on social media platforms. Service
managers and researchers are interested in Generation Y's social media usage because it may
JIBC April 2016, Vol. 21, No.1 -3-

be an indication of how people will behave in the future. The paper concludes much more
research is needed in order to comprehend the consequences of social media usage by the
digital natives.

Kumar et al. [3] aimed to investigate the effects of age on mobile service quality perceptions
and its impact on perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty between two significant mobile
service user segments – Generation Y and baby boomers. Gen Y consumers are born between
1980 and 1994, with the youngest being 12 years old and the oldest being 26 years old as of
2006. Gen Y‐ers are an important consumer segment. Gen Y‐ ers typically spend about $187
billion annually or $260 per person, per month in every industry, including wireless
communication. The results identify the mobile service quality attributes that are important to
Generation Y‐ers and baby boomers. The study also finds significant differences between the
two groups in terms of the effect of perceived economic and emotional value on satisfaction. In
addition to this, Gen Y is important for marketers because of the impact that they have on their
families' purchase decisions [4].

Gen Y‐ers are often early adopters of new technologies and are extensive users of the internet.
As with the internet, Gen Y‐ers are substantial users of mobile services. In terms of mobile
service usage, a recent study reports that more than 50 percent of US consumers in the age
group of 15‐24 own a mobile phone and these users outnumber all other users in terms of
minutes used, number of calls placed, messages sent/received and wireless data
transmitted/received [5].

Short message services (SMS) are also on the rise among Gen Y. A recent study indicates that
majority of Gen Y‐ers communicate via SMS with an average of 126 messages sent per month
[6]. Mobile phones are often a medium of self‐expression and individuality for the younger
generation [7-9]. For example, Gen Y‐ers personalize their phones by downloading unique ring
tones, screensavers and message tones. Also, Gen Y‐ers use mobile phones as an important
means to maintain peer relations. As Gen Y‐ers appear to be in the main stream of data service
users in the USA, and as mobile data services are a main source of income for mobile carriers,
Gen Y‐ers are an important target market for mobile carriers.

Generation Y is a unique and influential consumer group whose behavior is often discussed but
not fully understood [10,11]. Heavily influenced by technology and the internet, this consumer
cohort has evolved differently from previous generations making, it a challenging group to target
[12].

Generation Y individuals watch less television, are not influenced by mainstream media, and
are much more resistant to advertisements than previous generations [13-15]. They grew up in
a more media-saturated, brand-conscious world than their parents and they respond to ads
differently, preferring to encounter ads through sources other than traditional media. For this
reason, many companies are relying less on traditional media advertising and more on event
marketing, product placements and digital media [13]. For a message to appeal to Generation
Y, it must be quick, direct, and honest [14]. Generation Y does not trust the traditional news
media as much as earlier generations [16]. This generation dislikes being an advertising target,
so they depend more on their friends' opinions and word-of-mouth when making purchase
choices [16]. As moderate television viewers, Generation Y leans more toward programs shown
on network and cable, and less toward prime time [17]. Marketers who have successfully
targeted Generation Y use fewer traditional advertisements and often appeal to Generation Y
JIBC April 2016, Vol. 21, No.1 -4-

using messages that involve surprise and humor [16].

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The questionnaire was administered using online data collection forms prepared by Google
forms utility. The data collection lasted one month and took place in the April and May of 2015
when the 2014-2015 academic year second semester of the primary and secondary schools
were in session. The school is run by the National Ministry of Education of the Republic of
Turkey and is located in Yalova district of Turkey with a total of approximately 300 students
(Yalova Merkez Zübeyde Hanım Ortaokulu). The Yalova district is located in the northwest
of Turkey close to major cities like Ä°stanbul and Bursa. The district has a population of about
125,000.

The students were asked to complete the forms in computer classes. Out of 300 students 120 of
them completed the questionnaires. The questionnaire included 54 questions 4 of which are
demographic questions. The starting question of the survey was “Do you use Internet at all?”.
Although the online form permitted the respondents to fill the rest of the questionnaire even
though the answer is “no” the students with the “no” answers to the first question were deleted
from the analysis. As a result 113 questionnaires were usable.

Of the students who filled the 113 surveys 55 were males and 58 were females. 101 students
were middle school students (grades 5-8) and the remaining 12 were high school students
(grades 9-12). 33 students indicated that they used the Internet less than 1 hour per day, 49
indicated they used the Internet between 1 to 3 hours per day, 22 students indicated they used
the Internet between 3 to 5 hours per day and the remaining 9 students indicated they used the
Internet more than 5 hours per day. It is evident from the results of this question that the
students participating in the survey are actively using the Internet therefore the sample is
adequate for the research purpose of the study.

The SPSS computer program was used to analyze the data. Frequencies and cross tabulations
were used. Also, in order to explain the structure within the 10 Likert-Scale questions in the
survey MDS analysis was applied. In particular the PROXSCAL option of SPSS was used with
the “create proximities from data” option and the twodimensional solution.

RESULTS

With respect to the primary motivation for using the Internet a multiple choice question with the
possibility to check more than one answer was utilized. Top of the list was “Entertainment-
Video, Games etc.” with 63 responses. 43 students checked “Research and Homework” as the
main motivation for using the Internet. 32 students indicated “Social Media” as the reason for
using the Internet. Following that, 10 students indicated “Keeping Up to Date with the Topics of
the Day” as the reason for using the Internet. There were two other categories provided in the
multiple choice questions but very few students checked these. One was “E-mail” with 7
students indicating this as the reason for using the Internet.

And finally the “E-Government Services” category was checked with the least frequency with
just 3 students. On another question about what social media brings to mind first 21 checked
“Instant Access”, 34 checked “Fun”, 30 checked “Communication” and 28 checked “Sharing”.
JIBC April 2016, Vol. 21, No.1 -5-

One other set of questions asked the students which social media platforms they had accounts
in. The possible responses were Facebook, Twitter, Personal Blog, Instagram, LinkedIn, and
Foursquare. The vast majority of the students had a Facebook account with close to 77%.
Following that was Twitter with 38%. The results are tabulated in Table 1.

Table 1: Percentage of students with various Social Media accounts.

Social Media Percentage

Facebook 76.99%
Twitter 38.05%
Instagram 36.28%
Personal Blog 19.47%
Foursquare 11.50%
LinkedIn 7.08%

The students were also asked their primary motivation for using social media accounts. Among
the answer choices were passing time, playing games, online chat and some others. Their
answers indicated that the three categories mentioned had the highest frequencies. Following
brands was given among the categories however only three students checked this option. The
summary of the answers are given in Table 2.

Table 2: Percentage of students’ primary purpose in using Social Media accounts.

Primary Purpose Percentage

Passing Time 28,32%

Playing Games 18,58%

Online Chat 13,27%

Sharing Videos, Pictures 12,39%

Keeping Up to Date 9,73%

Following Friends 7,08%

Finding New Friends 6,19%

Following Brands 2,65%

Updating the Profile 1,77%

JIBC April 2016, Vol. 21, No.1 -6-

The number of friends on Facebook or the number of people followed in Twitter may also be a
sign of how intensely the teenagers use the social media tools. Table 3 provides the data for
Facebook and Twitter. Note that the number of students using Facebook is 87 and that for
Twitter is 43.

Table 3: Number of friends contacted on social media.

Number of Friends/Number of
Facebook Twitter
Friends Followed

Less Than 100 12 19

101-250 24 13
251-350 20 5
More than 351 31 7

Table 4: Where customers seek information about brands.

Source of Information on Brands Percentage

Facebook Pages 68,14%

Search Engines 64,60%

Facebook Groups 53,10%

Corporate Sites 46,90%

Twitter Accounts 41,59%

Forums 38,94%
Corporate Blogs 33,63%

Complaint Sites 33,63%

Personal Blogs 32,74%

Linked In Pages 14,16%

The 14 variables mentioned so far measured how intensely teenagers use various forms of
social media. What we are more interested is how they make their decisions about brands and
how these decisions are influenced by the Internet in general and more precisely by the social
media. The subjects were asked a series of 10 questions about how they collect their
JIBC April 2016, Vol. 21, No.1 -7-

information about brands. The results are summarized in Table 4.

Table 5: Likert Scale questionnaire items.

Question Variable Code

The presence of a brand on social media
V1
influences my attitude towards that brand
The presence of a brand on social media
influences my attitude positively towards that V2
brand
The presence of a brand on social media brings
competitive advantage for a firm against a V3
competitor
I am influenced by what the brands share on
V4
social media
I am influenced positively by what the brands
V5
share on social media
I think that a brand I see on social media is
V6
more reliable
I think that a brand I see on social media is
V7
more innovative
I think that a brand I see on social media is of
V8
better quality
I think that a brand I see on social media is
V9
more interactive

I prefer to buy a brand I see on social media V10

When students were asked if they are influenced by what their friends share about brands on
social media 55 over 113 indicated a yes response (this number was 79 when asked if they are
in general influenced by what their friends share on social media). 45 over 113 indicated that
they follow a brand on social media. When asked on specific types of social media Facebook
was top of the list by 57%, Twitter and Instagram had a tie at about 27% and LinkedIn 6%.
When asked if they ever joined a social media campaign of a brand only %18 indicated that
they did. The respondents were asked how important, in their views, it was for a company’s
image that the brands they carried had a Facebook page, Twitter account, Instagram account,
corporate web site or a LinkedIn page. On a four point scale where most important carries a
value of four, Facebook had 2.7, Twitter and Instagram has 2.3, corporate web site had 2.5 and
finally LinkedIn had 1.6.

Finally the survey included a battery of Likert Scale (5 point) agreement questions on various
JIBC April 2016, Vol. 21, No.1 -8-

aspects related to a firm’s social media presence. There were 10 such questions in total and the
questions and variable codes to be used in further analysis are presented in Table 5.
The average levels of agreement for the 10 items in decreasing order are provided in Table 6.
We can see that the highest level of agreement is with variable 3. The lowest one was with
variable 10.

Table 6: Average levels of agreement.

Average Variable Code

2.96 V3
2.83 V2
2.81 V5
2.76 V1
2.76 V9
2.75 V4
2.73 V7
2.67 V8
2.55 V6
2.51 V10

Table 7: Correlations among the 10 Likert Scale items.

V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10
V1 1 0.75 0.64 0.64 0.53 0.5 0.56 0.53 0.52 0.4
V2 1 0.56 0.61 0.5 0.6 0.57 0.62 0.6 0.41
V3 1 0.59 0.68 0.4 0.69 0.6 0.5 0.25
V4 1 0.62 0.58 0.59 0.56 0.56 0.4
V5 1 0.57 0.72 0.59 0.56 0.35
V6 1 0.52 0.57 0.55 0.56
V7 1 0.7 0.6 0.45
V8 1 0.51 0.34
V9 1 0.61
V10 1

It would also be interesting to study the correlations among the scale items. Table 7 provides
the Pearson product moment correlations. All of the correlations are significant at the .05 level.
The correlations are all positive with the largest being among V1 and V2, namely “influence
attitude towards brand” and “positively influence attitude towards brand”. The second largest
correlation is among V5 and V7, namely “influenced positively by what the brands share on
social media” and “a brand I see on social media is more innovative”. Another high correlation
following that is V7 and V8 which are “brands on social media are innovative” and “brands on
JIBC April 2016, Vol. 21, No.1 -9-

social media are of better quality”. V3 and V7 have the next highest correlation and those are
“presence of a brand on social media brings competitive advantage for a firm against a
competitor” and “brands on social media are innovative”. The most important variable perhaps is
V10 which is preference for brands with online presence. This variable correlates highly with V9
which is “brands on social media are interactive”.

One way we can try to group together the variables multiple item scales is by using Factor
Analysis. Another alternative is Multidimensional Scaling or MDS. MDS has been used
previously mainly for visualization purposes [18-22]. On the other hand the method can also be
used as an alternative to Factor Analysis in separating scale items into dimensions [23,24]. The
authors applied the technique in a scale related to information seeking and sharing; they stated
“This two-scale alignment confirms results of higher order factor analysis. Instrument items in
quadrants II and III, together with item #8, which is located near the Y axis, were identified as
belonging to the first of two scales derived by factor analysis. All remaining items, in quadrants I
and IV, were identified as belonging to the second scale. This two-factor solution was accepted
and resulted in the Information Seeking and Information Sharing scales of the ICTL”. In a similar
fashion we applied the MDS procedure to the 10 items and obtained the map in Figure 1.
According to this map the variables 3, 5, 7, and 8 fall into one cluster and variables 1, 2, 4, 6, 9,
and 10 fall into the second cluster, upon looking at the first dimension coordinates. This
observation is also consistent with the findings from the correlations given in Table 7.

Figure 1: MDS map of the 10 Likert Scale items.

CONCLUSION

In the context of financial services firms Internet banking and use of apps and social media sites
is becoming extremely important. As youngsters are moving on to college and becoming users
of financial services the study of their online behavior becomes more important for marketing
managers of these firms and others in different sectors such as FMCG and services.

We observe that a majority of the teenagers in Yalova area use some form of social media. One
type of social media seems to dominate however the two runners up are catching up. Almost
JIBC April 2016, Vol. 21, No.1 - 10 -

half of the teenagers seem to state that their primary purpose in using social media is passing
time and playing games. Those who use social media to follow brands fall at a minor 2-3%. In
terms of seeking information about brands however, Facebook seems to top of the list. Also
Facebook presence seems to be the most related to a company’s image in the eyes of the
millennials. On a 5-point Likert Scale the millennials stated an average level of agreement of 3
when asked whether social media presence would bring a company an advantage over
competitors who do not have a social media presence (the highest score). Another observation
from the survey conducted is that those who state preference for brands with social media
presence also think that companies present in social media are more interactive.

This study presented, for the case of Yalova district of Turkey, an analysis of the online
behaviors of teenagers who are in high school. The study can be extended to cover more
districts and other areas of Turkey. It can also be extended to cover teenagers who are not
attending high school. Having been completed in 2015 this study will act as a very recent
quantitative study with results being usable in the near future.

REFERENCES
1. Yarrow K, Donnell JO (2009) Gen Buy: How Tweens, Teens, and Twenty-Somethings are
Revolutionizing Retail. Jossey-Bass a Wiley Imprint: San Francisco, CA.

2. Bolton RN, Parasuraman A, Hoefnagels A, Migchels N, Kabadayi S, et al. (2013)

Understanding Generation Y and their use of social media: a review and research agenda.
Journal of Service Management 24: 245-267.

3. Kumar A, Lim H (2008) Age differences in mobile service perceptions: comparison of

Generation Y and baby boomers. Journal of Services Marketing 22: 568-577.

4. Renn KA, Arnold KD (2003) Re-conceptualizing research on college peer group culture. The
Journal of Higher Education 74: 93†•110.

5. http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/2570.asp

6. www.telecombeat.com/content/view/3040

7. Ling R (2002) Adolescent girls and young adult men: Two sub-cultures of the mobile
telephone. Revista de Estudios de juventud 52: 33-46.

8. Taylor AS, Harper R (2001) Talking activity: young people and mobile phones. Proceedings
of the CHICHI 2001 Workshop Mobile Communications Understanding Users, Adoption and
Design.

9. Ling R (2004) The Mobile Connection: The Cell Phone's Impact on Society. Elsevier:
Amsterdam.

10. Bridges ED, Burgess, B (2010) Personal preferences of tween shoppers. Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management 14: 624-633.

11. PainaR, ND, Luca, TA (2010) Several considerations regarding the online consumer in the
JIBC April 2016, Vol. 21, No.1 - 11 -

21st century - a theoretical approach. Management and Marketing 5: 85-100.

12. Lester, DH, Forman, AM, Loyd, D (2005) Internet shopping behavior of college students.
Services Marketing Quarterly 27: 123-138.

13. Ciminillo JA (2005) Elusive Generation Y demands edgier marketing. Automotive News 79:
28B.

14. Engebretson J (2004) Odd gen out. American Demographics 24: 14-18.

15. Pesquera A (2005) Reaching Generation Y. San Antonio Express-News 29: 1.

16. Peterson K (2004) Savvy Gen Y isn't buying traditional sales pitches. The Seattle Times.
17. Neuborne E (1999) Generation Y. Business Week 36: 80-88.

18. France SL, Carroll JD (2011) Two-way multidimensional scaling: A review. Systems, Man,
and Cybernetics. Applications and Reviews 41: 644-661.

19. Akkucuk U, Carroll JD (2010) Nonlinear mapping using a hybrid of PARAMAP and isomap
approaches. Classification as a Tool for Research pp. 371-380.

20. Akkucuk U, Kucukkancabas S (2007) Analyzing The Perceptions Of Turkish Universities

Using Multidimensional Scaling (Mds) Analysis. Bogazici Journal of Economics and
Administrative Sciences 21: 125-141.

21. Akkucuk U, Carroll JD, and France SL (2013) Visualizing Data in Social and Behavioral
Sciences: An Application of PARAMAP on Judicial Statistics. Algorithms from and for Nature
and Life pp. 147-154.

22. Akkucuk U (2011) A Study on the Competitive Positions of Countries Using Cluster Analysis
and Multidimensional Scaling. European Journal of Economics Finance and Administrative
Sciences 37: 17-26.

23. Dunn-Rankin P, Knezek G, Wallace S, Zhang S (2004) Scaling methods. Lawrence

Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.

24. Mills AM, Knezek G, Khaddage F (2014) Information Seeking, Information Sharing, and
going mobile: Three bridges to informal learning. Computers in Human Behavior 32: 324-
334.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.